The “lost interest in continuing playing, then halfway trough the game” phenomena

[Adm.Naismith]

Earthling7, I'm not sure about the needs to compile the "AI Rules". I bet it depends by how the AI engine will work.

I see no big problems implementing an "export /import AI learned rules" into the CIV III menu. They can use any file format they need!

Tniem, I'm afraid that an AI developing proper "counter move" is not a realistic hope today.

Any decent game can use some "pre-programmed" tactic that can be more or less difficult to master on first bunch of game you play.

Then a human player learn how to turn around that obvius predefined order and gain an easy win.

What I suggest is that you can have lot of different tactics available, that are easily build by others gamers via the "learn by mimic" concept.

May be you don't end with some wonderful AI, really mastering every available game tactics (better if not, IMHO, I like to win at the end ).

Simply you have, any few games, the opportunity to match against different tactics that you must learn how to properly counter.

If that's not replayability, what's then?

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[MidKnight Lament]

Shogun: Total War is supposed to have an AI that learns your tactics, and moves to counter them in the next game. How cool would that be if it worked with Civ?! Probably wishful thinking, but I'm prone to dreaming now and then.

- MKL

[Gord McLeod]

Computer programs that learn strategies and tactics from human players are not exactly new. It's very common these days... one of the first games I remember that featured it was Descent, though I doubt very much that it was actually the first. I don't see any particular reason that CivIII couldn't have a genuine learning system.

[Adm.Naismith]

Gord Mc Leod, aehm, well about

quote: Computer programs that learn strategies and tactics from human players are not exactly new. It's very common these days...

I'm afraid "I must dissent"

That's common hype by marketing. E.g. please note Firaxis claim on official Alien Crossfire site:

quote: BENCHMARK AUTOMATION Intelligent city governors (...)

If you played the game you know governor are almost intelligent as stones.

IMHO the actual games don't learn enough. But I know that game publishing returns are becoming more interesting, so it's more money for differentiate products, more money to pay last research in graphics engine and maybe some also on IA engine ...

I'm hoping.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-15-2000 06:35 PM That's common hype by marketing. E.g. please note Firaxis claim on official Alien Crossfire site:

Yes and no. There are marked differences in what 'learning systems' can mean... I'm something of a hobbiest in the field, so I know that it is possible and not TOO difficult, but it depends on the results you're expecting and what you personally define a "learning system" to be. If you want something that learns as fast and as well as a human being... well, we're a LLLLLLOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG way off from that point yet. And, I'll admit, games as complex as Civ and SMAC can make the task both harder and easier, simultaneously.... But, I maintain, it is very possible. Not very EASY... but nobody said it would be easy, did they?

quote: If you played the game you know governor are almost intelligent as stones.

No argument here...

quote: IMHO the actual games don't learn enough. But I know that game publishing returns are becoming more interesting, so it's more money for differentiate products, more money to pay last research in graphics engine and maybe some also on IA engine ...

Exactly - they don't learn *enough*. They do learn, though, and if you can get them to learn the right things at the right times and at the right pace, you don't need to make them geniuses in a human scale.

[The Joker]

I actually think the SMAC SI was a HUGE improvement compared to Civ2. Not only did it react to your attacks (as Adm.Naismith described), it also made real attacks in stead of just sending units against you one at a time and it built cities that actually had a significant amount of improvements in them (Morgan especcially).

I am not saying it was perfect, cause it was not so at all, but it was an improvement, and if the gap between SMAC and Civ3 is as large as the one between Civ2 and SMAC I don't think we'll have too much to worry about.

Of cause there are lots of things that can be improved. Lord Maxwells idea of having the automated formers and cities work together is sort of a must. I tryed to automate my formers as much as possible, but I still had to check if my cities were actually using the improvements made. I know that I would be more succesful if I micromanaged my formers, but that is a price I think is worth paying for having a funnier game.

Naismiths idea with a mimicing AI is just great. Not only would it improve the AI, it would also make it sort of possible to play against the best players around (via their AI).

You should be able to have several AIs downloaded at the same time, and choose which one to play against for each game. You should also be able to let them play against each other so they could get better and better.